"Al Jazeera has been the leader in literally changing people's minds and attitudes. And like it or hate it, it is really effective.

In fact viewership of al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it's real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners."

True, but it can also require both sides to use ACTUAL facts in their reporting. How much hate, discontent and divisiveness from BOTH sides have been the fault of OPINIONS being reported as fact.

If it was used to make them show facts and not force a station/show to show the other side to 'balance' it, then I might offer tentative support. I can see it being used more to silence the opposition than actually requiring facts to be shown. Especially on the radio.

I would consider that the lesser of two evils. What good is having your voice heard if it's drowned in tons of bullshit?

Better to be buried under bullshit than silenced because you are the only voice. At least people have a chance to hear you if you can still broadcast. The Nazis* and Soviets did very well with silencing the opposition. That's a slope I do not want to walk on and it infringes very much into the Freedom of Speech right of the Constitution.

* I did not mean to invoke Godwin's Law, but the Nazis and Soviets did have a clear case of removing any vocal opposition. Wether permanently or just by removing their ability to speak.

If it was used to make them show facts and not force a station/show to show the other side to 'balance' it, then I might offer tentative support. I can see it being used more to silence the opposition than actually requiring facts to be shown. Especially on the radio.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it be a real hit in the nads to the REALLY outspoken idiots on the radio, the more balanced shows wouldn't have many problems. More 'facts' and less 'because I said it was fact' can't hurt things in my opinion.

And you have to admit the actually veracity of American broadcast journalism went to shit with the disestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine in the 80s. That was when it really took off as a 'ratings' extravaganza.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it be a real hit in the nads to the REALLY outspoken idiots on the radio, the more balanced shows wouldn't have many problems. More 'facts' and less 'because I said it was fact' can't hurt things in my opinion.

And you have to admit the actually veracity of American broadcast journalism went to shit with the disestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine in the 80s. That was when it really took off as a 'ratings' extravaganza.

Uum.. that's a rather disturbing statement Callie. Just because you do not like what someone is saying, doesn't mean you have any right to shut them up. Wether or not you like what they say, on the TV, cable/satellite, newsprint or internet, they have the right to say it (in this country at least).

Many radio shows also do political commentary so forcing them off the air through the Fairness doctrine would seve to silence poltical speech and in this case, greatly help the Democrat party, since the radio is mostly dominated by the right leaning talk shows. Like it or not, they have a legitimate right to say what they will.

We had no right to shut up Radio Rwanda when it was spewing its hate speech, then?

A lot of speech that needs to be blocked ought to fall under slander and libel. We're far too liberal with allowing outright accusations in this country, and it's one of the reasons why Fox has no presence in Canada, for example.

Uum.. that's a rather disturbing statement Callie. Just because you do not like what someone is saying, doesn't mean you have any right to shut them up. Wether or not you like what they say, on the TV, cable/satellite, newsprint or internet, they have the right to say it (in this country at least).

Many radio shows also do political commentary so forcing them off the air through the Fairness doctrine would seve to silence poltical speech and in this case, greatly help the Democrat party, since the radio is mostly dominated by the right leaning talk shows. Like it or not, they have a legitimate right to say what they will.

I have no problem with folks expressing OPINIONS. I have a problem with people doing so and sayign they are CONCRETE FACTS.

Too many 'journalists' use the lack of anything remotely related to accountability as an excuse to say anything and everything that comes through their skull. How many times have ..well to use the best example that comes to mind.. Glenn Beck come onto TV and/or Radio with FACTS that were nothing remotely related to factual content?

There was a LOT of editorials back when the fairness doctrine was in place. The OPINIONS of the media were aired, and did a lot to shape events.

as much as I like Al-Jazeera, I don't think they're going to show up and suddenly make everything in America a civil debate again. (And lo, Al-Jazeera said 'Let there be politeness'. And the Democrats and Republicans turned politics into a civil debate over a cup of tea. And it was good.)

On a sidenote, I'm surprised AIPAC isn't trying to do something about this.

I have no problem with folks expressing OPINIONS. I have a problem with people doing so and sayign they are CONCRETE FACTS.

Too many 'journalists' use the lack of anything remotely related to accountability as an excuse to say anything and everything that comes through their skull. How many times have ..well to use the best example that comes to mind.. Glenn Beck come onto TV and/or Radio with FACTS that were nothing remotely related to factual content?

There was a LOT of editorials back when the fairness doctrine was in place. The OPINIONS of the media were aired, and did a lot to shape events.

Fairness doesn't mean 'kill all opinion'.

That's part of the problem. Determining fact from opinion. In political discourse, fact is often sapped, mugged, tied up, drug off somewhere and warped outy of shape by both sides. The mass media are masters at obfuscating issues with emotion so the facts get lost in the shuffle.

Using the Fairness doctrine, it would be easier to just shut down those who you (and who would be the arbitrators of what's fact and what is opinion? The line can get blurry at times) dislike and shut them up than make them change their ways. I think both sides (Republican and Democrat) would be stupid or vindictive use the FD as a hammer to cut out opposition voices. Don't like what they say? Yank their licence to broadcast or hit them with enough fines it's too expensive to remain operating.

The freedom of speech has to cover both sides of the issue. Or it's completely worthless. Even what's on and in, especially IN, the media. Alot of what you hear on the radio is political.

I thought that the Fairness Doctrine required the addition of the contrasting point of view - i.e., if you have an article on how awful the Dems are being for walking out of the Wisconsin Senate, you had to have an article on how awful the Repubs were being for trying to sneak the vote through without a quorum.

I thought that the Fairness Doctrine required the addition of the contrasting point of view - i.e., if you have an article on how awful the Dems are being for walking out of the Wisconsin Senate, you had to have an article on how awful the Repubs were being for trying to sneak the vote through without a quorum.

From what I understand about it, it could either require a show put forth both sides or an issue, or the station/company that airs the show to put on a show that has an opposite view. The problem with that is most shows (using radio as an example) are syndicated and the talk show host already has his/sher own format.

The Fairness Doctrine (FD) can be used to either make that host give both sides even when they do not agree with the other side, or make the station that airs it put on another show that has a diferent view. Another part of the problem is most talk shows are political. If the FD is used to censor their speech (and it would be. Especially in today's political climate), then it's in direct violation of the Right to Free Speech.

I can easily see politicians and bureacrats using the FD to shut up shows like Bill O'Reilly's or Glen Beck's. I might not agree with them (personally I think they go overboard on sensationalism), but they have every right to be on the air. Unless they are openly and actively talking the overthrow of the US (Teason. A -very- hard case to prove).

If it did that for news shows, Onyia, it might not be so bad, but it's use wouldn't be limited to just news shows.

Correction on my part, I meant to say quality rather than equality. Though one could say they are certainly related.

As me, the viewer, listener and reader it is up to me to drawn from multiple resources and come to a plausible truth. I don't suggest that news outlets don't have a responsibility to report the truth, they do, but to suggest the government can provide a likely remedy I think is off track. In my opinion we too often look to the government for redress when we should look to ourselves and our local communities. My first inclination is never to first look to Washington for a resolution. I'm perfectly capable of changing the channel, turning the page or finding multiple points of view online without the government's help.

Correction on my part, I meant to say quality rather than equality. Though one could say they are certainly related.

As me, the viewer, listener and reader it is up to me to drawn from multiple resources and come to a plausible truth. I don't suggest that news outlets don't have a responsibility to report the truth, they do, but to suggest the government can provide a likely remedy I think is off track. In my opinion we too often look to the government for redress when we should look to ourselves and our local communities. My first inclination is never to first look to Washington for a resolution. I'm perfectly capable of changing the channel, turning the page or finding multiple points of view online without the government's help.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I honestly don't see anything as POTENTIALLy viable as the Fairness Doctrine (and yes I'm not entirely happy with it) but there has been over the last 3 decades a growing LACK of personal accountability on the behalf of broadcast journalism in the US.

Yes, that makes me a relic wanting REPORTERS and not talking heads. I DESPISE folks like Glenn Beck being considered as reporters. I HATE things like the media.. feeding frenzy that occurs these days. They DEMAND to know everything, get into EVERYTHING and never care what their rampant revelation of facts might do at times.

The beltway sniper is the best example I can think of for me. I was in Maryland for school at NAS Pax River at the time. I HATED the fact that the media pushed and pushed and pushed the cops to tell EVERYTHING. Anything at all no matter the consequences to the public at large.

I watched the sherrif explode at the media and I was OUTRAGED how they made him into the bad guy. I mean they KEPT asking and asking and asking about elements of the case they had no NEED to know.

I know that accountability and responsibility are dead in the media and that I might be a relic for wanting them to step up and do their job again.

Yes, that makes me a relic wanting REPORTERS and not talking heads. I DESPISE folks like Glenn Beck being considered as reporters. I HATE things like the media.. feeding frenzy that occurs these days. They DEMAND to know everything, get into EVERYTHING and never care what their rampant revelation of facts might do at times.

I would only say that anyone who thinks Glenn Beck (Insert your favorite pundit here) is a reporter, needs to have their head checked. I mean, I can only presume Liberals don't believe Jon Stewart is a reporter, right? Its an SNL skit, nothing more.

Republican I may be, and while I know you aren't attacking me, I just want to reinforce that I know the difference between punditry and hard news.

I would only say that anyone who thinks Glenn Beck (Insert your favorite pundit here) is a reporter, needs to have their head checked. I mean, I can only presume Liberals don't believe Jon Stewart is a reporter, right? Its an SNL skit, nothing more.

Republican I may be, and while I know you aren't attacking me, I just want to reinforce that I know the difference between punditry and hard news.

I'm not Zam.. I'm that rare bird..the moderate Republican. I have a few issues that I really altered from the party line but more often not I prefer Republican canidates (with some national exceptions) over Democrats.

I think writing Jon Stewart off as an SNL skit is pretty grossly inaccurate and shows a bit of a lack of understanding of what the Daily Show is and how it operates.

Yes, they run on Comedy Central. Yes, Jon Stewart is a comedian who uses humor and all of its subsidies such as wit and sarcasm to show the news. But to write it off as nothing more than a mindless skit with no purpose? More and more people are turning to TDS as a source of news and a way to supplement their political know-how because he has the creative freedom to point out the inaccuracies and hypocrisies of both sides from a fairly safe sideline and the means to do so in the avenue he knows best as a comedian -- comedy. He's reported on issues that sometimes "serious" news networks won't -- he was applauded later on for his involvement in the 9/11 responders case because he put a spotlight on an important issue that other networks didn't deem worthy and pointed out the glaring and disgusting hypocrisy of the GOP on the matter. Comedian though he is, it seriously begins to blur the lines between comedian and journalism because he walks the line very, very well.

It's not to say Jon Stewart is the paragon of absolute fairness -- it's no secret that he has a left lean and that his audience is largely liberal, but he has shown time and time again that he's willing to nail both sides on their stupidity when it comes around, which puts him miles and miles ahead of sources like Fox News or MSNBC. The Rally to Restore Sanity is a great example of Stewart reaching out to moderates who are turned off by the insanity of both sides of the fence.

Finally, Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck run shows that are nothing alike and to compare the two is laughable, at best. I only wish Glenn Beck's segment were nothing but satire in the way that Steven Colbert's is, but he's passing off his fringe lunacy as tangible fact in a way only Fox News could pull off -- blending opinion into fact to the point they're nearly indistinguishable. Even Jon Stewart consistently mocks his own show as not being very serious, his show peppered with obvious staged reporting despite the fact that when he needs to, he does report on very real issues. He at least attempts transparency and disclaimers that you should not take what he says as irrefutable truth. I'm not so sure that you can say the same thing for Beck.

Middle Eastern governments hate Al Jazeera as much as progressives hate Fox. It has a great English web site now and you'll find news (some good, some bad) that you won't get elsewhere. Its worth taking a look at it. As for the Fairness Doctrine, I support its return. I get the other side's argument, but I don't see it as silencing anyone. It just means that on controversial issues, if you hold a broadcast license, you have to present opposing views. To me, this means more views get heard. I don't think it means every view gets heard, it just means that you try to present a fair and balanced view of the world (exactly what Fox claims it already does).

Middle Eastern governments hate Al Jazeera as much as progressives hate Fox. It has a great English web site now and you'll find news (some good, some bad) that you won't get elsewhere. Its worth taking a look at it. As for the Fairness Doctrine, I support its return. I get the other side's argument, but I don't see it as silencing anyone. It just means that on controversial issues, if you hold a broadcast license, you have to present opposing views. To me, this means more views get heard. I don't think it means every view gets heard, it just means that you try to present a fair and balanced view of the world (exactly what Fox claims it already does).

It has it's problems (Fairness Doctrine) but I really don't know how to fix the problems. 'Fair and Balanced' is hard to push forward but it's quite clear we need to do something. Since my last post I've looked, thought and wracked my brain on an alternative that would work.

I don't know of one that works. The Fairness Doctrine works (somewhat) but has clear warts. Nothing (which we have now) doesn't work. No one wants a return to the Doctrine (well no one in media or politics) but I've yet to see anyone put forth that works either.

I have a crush on Al Jazeera.Yeah. The whole network.I remember watching it when stuff was going down in Egypt. It was REAL news. The opinions were unbiased and everything was delivered point-blank. It was straightforward, and didn't have people telling you what to think.It's a brilliant network.I'm glad to hear that it's passing Fox in the rankings. Because, frankly, that network is awful.

Ehhh, let's not get ahead of ourselves here...Al-Jazeera has a laundry list of complaints lodged against them in regards to various slants to their reporting, especially in regards to Israel/Palestine. They had arguably the best coverage of the protests in Egypt especially, but it isn't to say that their daily reporting is or isn't more biased.

Regardless, I think it would be wise to give Americans more exposure to news out of the Middle East from a source closer to the area. I wouldn't mind seeing Al-Jazeera/Al-Arabiya come to cable in the US, myself, and I think it would be prudent to help familiarize Americans with "their people", so to speak. It's interesting how different the style of news becomes when the source is actually in the relevant geographic location. I do have to say, however, the pessimist in me is also commenting that it'll give the "OMG THE ISLAMIFICATION OF AMERICA" crowd more to cry about.

Even the name is enough to arouse suspicion because we just aren't familiar enough with the Middle East without conjuring up images of bearded men with towels on their head and a few sticks of TNT strapped to their chest. The logo alone is a frank reminder that THIS IS NOT AMERICAN.

My point wasn't that there is some mythical unicorn news station that's perfectly unbiased -- the point is not to put al-Jazeera on a pedestal any more than you have to. They may be above the kind of atrocious spin Fox News puts on their news, but bias is still bias no matter how you spell it.

My point wasn't that there is some mythical unicorn news station that's perfectly unbiased -- the point is not to put al-Jazeera on a pedestal any more than you have to. They may be above the kind of atrocious spin Fox News puts on their news, but bias is still bias no matter how you spell it.

My point wasn't that there is some mythical unicorn news station that's perfectly unbiased -- the point is not to put al-Jazeera on a pedestal any more than you have to. They may be above the kind of atrocious spin Fox News puts on their news, but bias is still bias no matter how you spell it.

Al Jazeera reporting is no more biased than any other media. At least through them we get all sides of the story, especially when looking at the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Media in the U.S. is so slanted in favor of Israel that they actually treat press releases from the Israeli Defense Forces as factual news. We never see Palestinian houses being demolished or peaceful demonstrations being broken up with tear gas and rubber bullets. Al Jazeera shows it all, for that matter, so does BBC news, and NPR. I'll take their reporting over the Washington Post any day.

Which is what my whole post was about It's just as biased, so to lavish it with praise is inaccurate since they're not much better than any other source, they just give a different perspective on the bias. Bias is bias is bias.

Quote

At least through them we get all sides of the story, especially when looking at the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Media in the U.S. is so slanted in favor of Israel that they actually treat press releases from the Israeli Defense Forces as factual news. We never see Palestinian houses being demolished or peaceful demonstrations being broken up with tear gas and rubber bullets. Al Jazeera shows it all, for that matter, so does BBC news, and NPR. I'll take their reporting over the Washington Post any day.

Well, no. Getting all sides of the story would mean they're not as biased as other media outlets and comparing al-Jazeera to NPR is...well, not accurate at all. NPR has the least biased reporting I've encountered in recent times and is not like al-Jazeera at all. When I watched during the Egypt coverage, it was pretty well slated towards the protesters, even the on-air hosts were openly engaging in rather impassioned debate against more pro-Mubarak interviewees, not to mention their laundry list of controversies, one of which includes their coverage about Israel/Palestine.

Relative to the overall population of internet users, the site's users are disproportionately Caucasian, and they tend to be higher-income, moderately educated men over the age of 35 who browse from work.

The site says nothing about Aljazeera's demographic, nothing as specific as that. Biased much? LOL

Here is a Daily Pageview graph comparison of the two. Predictably there was a spike for Aljazeera in Feburary when the shit hit the fan in Egypt and the Middle East. They've since came back closer together, though the over all trend (3 months) looks to be up for both.

Well, no. Getting all sides of the story would mean they're not as biased as other media outlets and comparing al-Jazeera to NPR is...well, not accurate at all. NPR has the least biased reporting I've encountered in recent times and is not like al-Jazeera at all. When I watched during the Egypt coverage, it was pretty well slated towards the protesters, even the on-air hosts were openly engaging in rather impassioned debate against more pro-Mubarak interviewees, not to mention their laundry list of controversies, one of which includes their coverage about Israel/Palestine.

I read Al Jazeera regularly on the net, and do believe that in their reporting both sides are represented more often than not. No one is perfect. What they do on their broadcasts I cannot attest to. Their written bias is mostly limited to who they chose to blog with and editorial matter. That is to be expected.

Read through your criticism link, the notes on Israel are interesting. They at times took away Visas for Al Jazeera staff, would not let them in certain meetings, and would not allow them to interview officials. Real freedom of the press there!!

Mainly, the point is that Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as some organization run by Jihadists. It is real reporting, much better than most. Certainly much, much, better than the trash on FOX.

The site says nothing about Aljazeera's demographic, nothing as specific as that. Biased much? LOL

Alexa gets that data from people who use their toolbar and make purchases at Amazon, or otherwise give Amazon's online empire (Mechanical Turk, AWS, etc.) that information. This takes time, and a Western audience tends to make more on-line purchases than an Arab one.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with bias there.

It does get kindof silly watching what services like Compete, Quantcast, and Alexa say about Elliquiy from time to time.

Quote

Here is a Daily Pageview graph comparison of the two. Predictably there was a spike for Aljazeera in Feburary when the shit hit the fan in Egypt and the Middle East. They've since came back closer together, though the over all trend (3 months) looks to be up for both.

Yo can set the timescale to 'max' to see the longer term trend. Fox, like most places, gets spikes like the one they had last week. Even after Al-Jazeera's bump, though, they're sustaining a tenfold increase from last year's performance.

I read Al Jazeera regularly on the net, and do believe that in their reporting both sides are represented more often than not. No one is perfect. What they do on their broadcasts I cannot attest to. Their written bias is mostly limited to who they chose to blog with and editorial matter. That is to be expected.

Read through your criticism link, the notes on Israel are interesting. They at times took away Visas for Al Jazeera staff, would not let them in certain meetings, and would not allow them to interview officials. Real freedom of the press there!!

Mainly, the point is that Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as some organization run by Jihadists. It is real reporting, much better than most. Certainly much, much, better than the trash on FOX.

Yes, and I'll reiterate my point: bias is bias. Skew is still skew and comparing lesser and greater evils doesn't take away the fact that they're still tilted. By all means, read what you'd like, choose what stations and information sources you'd like -- I agree with you that they need to be given more credit and that the US did not treat them particularly kind during the coverage of the Iraq War when it first started...Hell, I visit Al-Jazeera now and then to peruse their North African news because I like that they're closer to the area they're covering than Western sources, but I am aware of their background and therefore browse with a little more caution.

My only point was that praising them so highly isn't entirely merited; it really doesn't take much to be better than Fox News, seeing as one merely needs to be even marginally honest to do so. Technically speaking, we could say that stealing a car is better than committing genocide, but it doesn't actually make doing it a good choice or a positive action. I do hope that they find more coverage on cable in the US because I do think that Americans desperately need to familiarize themselves with the Middle East and Arab world outside of OMG EVERYONE'S A TERRORIST, I just don't think they should be treated above your average news source (outside of Fox News).

Mainly, the point is that Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as some organization run by Jihadists. It is real reporting, much better than most. Certainly much, much, better than the trash on FOX.

I agree with you on the Jihadist point. I've heard a lot of Conservatives in America claiming that Al Jazeera is linked into the Muslim Brotherhood and has supported uprising throughout the Middle East in the name of creating a unified Islamic political bloc by removing Dictators who stand in the way of its formation. This is ridiculous, Al Jazeera is simply a rising star of the news world which reports from an Arabic perspective.

And while I'm glad Al Jazeera exists because we need diverse voices in the global media that can counter-balance each others' spin and misinformation, we still need to adhere to an aggregate view instead of trusting any one particular source. It doesn't matter if Al Jazeera is more trustworthy than Fox (which would be a hard thing to establish, if the facts are out there I haven't seen them and I have looked), you still can't take any media outlet on its word. Nothing should really be taken on its word. We don't even trust scientists, who in theory report directly on their findings from reproducible experiments, at their word. That's the whole point of peer review.

Bottom line, it's dangerous to elevate any one organization or individual above the crowd, because then you won't see the lies that they do tell. And everyone lies. Sometimes it's not intentional, oftentimes we don't see the ways in which we deceive ourselves and then pass that deception along, but it does happen.

If anyone else here was alive back in the early-mid eighties, they may recall that there weren't any politics on television or the radio, outside of news reporting. No opining (Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, etc), no comedy (Colbert and Stewart), none of it. Networks were unwilling to risk cries of bias (via the doctrine), and so chose to completely censor politics.

In a free society such as ours, we should not be censoring any of this. If Michael Savage wants to express his disdain for islamic terrorists, then he should have the right to do so. The same goes for Ariana Huffington and her web sites that pontificate in the opposite direction as most radio and television sources.

Hell, they'd have to shut MSNBC down entirely. People cry about Fox (rightly so), but no one ever seems to complain about MSNBC, which is just as slanted (if not more so) as Fox News.

I was around in the 80s..there was a bit more fact and far less 'what is Debutante X up to this week' eating up our time slots. Do you think some of the stuff that slid under the american radar would have done so in the 80s? I'm not saying the fairness doctrine is perfect.. It wasn't, but back then the news shows REPORTED. You didn't have the anchor saying that it was okay to murder a medical professional because he disagreed with the practices of the doctor.

I was alive in the mid-eighties. But I was far more interested in learning to walk and getting through elementary school. So I canít pretend to speak to what was on the radio or television. But the Fairness Doctrine (or an alternative) need not and would not shut down Beck, Colbert, Limbaugh, and Stewart. It only required that licensed broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. It wasnít 50/50. You had a lot of latitude on how a station decided to present a contrasting view. Sometimes, it would be a brief segment after a show or an editorial.

It wasnít just the fairness doctrine that impeded journalists back then. There was this strong idea that the ethics of journalism required reporters to be unbiased. They werenít. We know that. But they tried not to be blatantly to one side. You didnít have as many straight opinion pieces, you had a lot more Ďstraightí news segments. Politics was definitely covered in the 1970s and 1980s and before. Admittedly, we didn't have quite so many people telling us what to think about what was reported. The reason broadcasters are subject to the fairness doctrine and not newspapers or magazines or (I would argue the Internet) is that these broadcasters get something no one else gets, the right to broadcast on a specific spectrum of the radio television band waves. I can pick up and paper and become a newspaper if I want or publish a magazine or start a blog.

Itís not limited. But I canít set up a competing radio or television station. The law stops me. We could make it so broadcasts are much more local. But we give broadcasters the right to broadcast at huge power and cover large areas. The Supreme Court has said again and again that if a broadcaster is going to enjoy the benefits and protections of the licensing system, itís not a First Amendment issue when the government regulates how you use that license. Its like driving a car. Everyone gets a turn at the intersection. Now its different for an Arianna Huffington. We truly can compete with her. As for MSNBC and FOX, yes, both are incredibly biased. Would it hurt to dedicate 8 minutes an hour to presenting an opposing view point? Not if your competitors had to do it also. In the end, there may be something better than the Fairness Doctrine. Iím not saying itís the only way to address the problem. But there is a problem and itís the only proposed solution Iíve heard presented so far.

Hell, they'd have to shut MSNBC down entirely. People cry about Fox (rightly so), but no one ever seems to complain about MSNBC, which is just as slanted (if not more so) as Fox News.

Here's the difference between MSNBC and Fox News:

MSNBC - "Lean Forward"Fox News - "Fair and balanced"

MSNBC is fairly transparent about their bias without trying to pass it off as centrist. Fox News, despite its truckloads of mere "opinion" segments, blurs it all together as their version of the truth and still proclaims that it's "fair and balanced".

And let's not even begin to compare the absolute batshittery of Fox News reporters and correspondents to MSNBC's. Olbermann was pretty bad, but he's no Glenn Beck by any stretch. Olbermann was suspended for donating to three political campaigns. I'm not really sure how accountable Fox News has been for their own team (and I mean this genuinely, if there's a comparable example, I'd like to hear it). Rachel Maddow is fairly sane, but also up-front about her leanings.

I'm genuinely curious to see in what ways MSNBC is "as bad" as Fox News. I'd argue and say that while yes, they are quite biased (and that's bad), you can see the difference in the way they treat their broadcasting in terms of ratings. Fox News is sensationalistic and exploitative because it gets good ratings. They sacrifice truth for viewership. I'd be so bold as to say MSNBC has half the crazies and subsequently, much less than half the viewers.

I was around in the 80s..there was a bit more fact and far less 'what is Debutante X up to this week' eating up our time slots. Do you think some of the stuff that slid under the american radar would have done so in the 80s? I'm not saying the fairness doctrine is perfect.. It wasn't, but back then the news shows REPORTED. You didn't have the anchor saying that it was okay to murder a medical professional because he disagreed with the practices of the doctor.

We might not need the Fairness Doctrine back, but we need SOMETHING.

There is Canada's solution, which basically prohibits Fox from entering - stronger libel and slander laws, and willful distribution of a lie is in fact a prosecutable crime.

I think a more well-defined version of the Fairness Doctrine may also work, as well - if you discuss a specific person or group, that group should be allowed the chance to respond.

Some stricter rules probably wouldn't be the end of the world, but I think we need more than that. Critical thinking needs to make a come back in a big way, we need to educate the populace on things like confirmation bias and vaccinate ourselves against stupidity.

Some stricter rules probably wouldn't be the end of the world, but I think we need more than that. Critical thinking needs to make a come back in a big way, we need to educate the populace on things like confirmation bias and vaccinate ourselves against stupidity.

Seriously needs to get some control of the talking mouths. Put reporters back in place and have some damn ethics in mind with consideration of what they say on the damn air. Seriously.

If anyone else here was alive back in the early-mid eighties, they may recall that there weren't any politics on television or the radio, outside of news reporting. No opining (Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, etc), no comedy (Colbert and Stewart), none of it. Networks were unwilling to risk cries of bias (via the doctrine), and so chose to completely censor politics.

Could you elaborate on why you believe this? I was under the impression that things like that didn't exist back then because it just wasn't profitable. News was just news, not entertainment, and networks wouldn't allow it to take up valuable airtime from more worthwhile ventures.

Could you elaborate on why you believe this? I was under the impression that things like that didn't exist back then because it just wasn't profitable. News was just news, not entertainment, and networks wouldn't allow it to take up valuable airtime from more worthwhile ventures.

Back in the day, pre-Ted Turner, no one thought news more than 2 hours at time would make money. CNN USED to do just that and made money hand over fist.. of course this was also back when MTV played music videos.

Back in the day, pre-Ted Turner, no one thought news more than 2 hours at time would make money. CNN USED to do just that and made money hand over fist.. of course this was also back when MTV played music videos.

Wouldn't that force talk shows to change their format and put on people that they might not want on?

I think if they preface the broadcast with ye olde disclaimer it might be easier. Thing is.. it won't happen. Too many corporate interests are invested in opinions and not truth. There will be no FCC guide lines, or even something remotely calling for more ethical behavior. Too long has gone since the death of the Fairness Doctrine and nothing to replace it.

There is little argument we have many more choices of media outlets today, than 15 or 20 years ago. As a result of many more choices, some of those choices may be circumspect, of less quality. Quantity goes up and the relative quality drops. But I think we'd mostly agree that more choices are better than less. Right? And I'd argue that fairness policing by the government isn't a good solution. What is so awful about competing in the market of ideas? I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved. That is of course, just my opinion

There is little argument we have many more choices of media outlets today, than 15 or 20 years ago. As a result of many more choices, some of those choices may be circumspect, of less quality. Quantity goes up and the relative quality drops. But I think we'd mostly agree that more choices are better than less. Right? And I'd argue that fairness policing by the government isn't a good solution. What is so awful about competing in the market of ideas? I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved. That is of course, just my opinion

While it had problems we never had a talking head calling for the death of a person they didn't approve of back then. Unlike the MULTIPLE comments on the O'Reilly Factor (specifically the late George Tiller).

There has to be some level of restraint, or barring that responsibility, and it's quite clear that the industry isn't willing to sit down and regulate themselves. Every week they do more and more in the pursuit of ONE THING. Ratings.

The public goes to them for information, right or wrong, and if they can't.. or in this case.. won't regulate their behavior, we have to expect someone to. We don't need the every last damn minute details of what this or that celebrity does or doesn't do.

The suppression of students in Venezuela got damn near NO coverage in the US (I only saw it on BBC America) and at the same time the lovely folks at Fox, CNN looped HOURS of coverage on whether some rich spoiled heiress was going to be compelled to show up for court rather than staying at home under house arrest. Four hours prior to the sherrifs being sent to 2 hours past, constant loops of it.

We got a man whose history follows a disturbing parallel to Adolf Hitler in power down south. A decade from now when there are bodies all over the place, the media will be asking 'how did this happen?' and look innocently around to find someone in office to blame.

The media's role is to shine a light into the areas where people need to know, NOT pander to the lowest common denominator.

There is little argument we have many more choices of media outlets today, than 15 or 20 years ago. As a result of many more choices, some of those choices may be circumspect, of less quality. Quantity goes up and the relative quality drops. But I think we'd mostly agree that more choices are better than less. Right? And I'd argue that fairness policing by the government isn't a good solution. What is so awful about competing in the market of ideas? I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved. That is of course, just my opinion

There's a great TED Talk about how does actually seem to be the case that past a certain threshold, more choice is in fact worse.

Case 1: Google Search results. You're looking for information about one thing, and often have to wade through spamdexed links, false information and other crap to find what you are looking for. Especially with legal information. Are all of those 'choices' - designed to fleece you - really 'good'?Case 2: Affiliate partners. There's a reason why I only have a few - I only get paid in $50 increments. If I had thousands up there, fewer people would make purchases from each individual one, and I'd make nothing from them.

And fairness in reporting is mostly about allowing people accused of something some redress. Either by preventing it from happening (stronger libel/slander laws), providing a medium of response (you talk about someone through a broadcast medium you give them the right to respond), or both.

I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved.

Given how uninformed the public is on political issues and how a large portion of the media is devoted to pushing "information" hand-picked to support those points of views, I think we very much are in crisis-mode media-wise.

Stewart, Colbert, and Maddow will do just fine devoting a few minutes of their show to responses. And not everyone is going to respond.

So much for the Freedom of Speech clause then. Many talk shows do political commentary, the Fairness Doctrine would seriously cut in to what they could say about a candidate since they could and likely would, be forced to let another side be shown/talked about on their shows. If they do not want to show the other side, they should have to be made to.

Freedom of speech protects ALL speech. Even that we do not like, including lies.

Quote

People who outright libel and slander on their shows will have a tougher time coping.

That includes damned near every single political campaign being run nowdays.

Actually, freedom of speech doesn't cover ALL speech. At all. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and people trample each other in the panic ensuing, then you're gonna get busted for that. If you damage someone's career or lifestyle by lying about them, you're gonna get punished for that. Not only is there no such thing as universally free speech, having that would be a bad thing.

And it wouldn't limit what people COULD say about a candidate. It would probably just limit what they WOULD say about a candidate. And it's perfectly fair for the opposing side to be able to defend themselves. The media people could say all they want, and then the opposing side could defend with whatever. Doesn't affect what people can and can't say any more than the laws we already have in place.

And a bunch of people would have trouble coping. But hopefully that would just result in the people who couldn't cope losing their jobs and being replaced with better, more informative, news persons.

Actually, freedom of speech doesn't cover ALL speech. At all. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and people trample each other in the panic ensuing, then you're gonna get busted for that. If you damage someone's career or lifestyle by lying about them, you're gonna get punished for that. Not only is there no such thing as universally free speech, having that would be a bad thing.

Agreed, you can yell fire in a crowded theater. you'll just get in trouble for causing a panic. You have every right to say it if you're an idiot and want to deal with the consequences. Common sense stops most people from doing that though.

As for hurtful things? that's a vague term, otherwise the KKK parades and people like the WBC would be shut down because what the message they say is hurtful to alot of people. Yet those people can still say more or less what they will.

Quote

And it wouldn't limit what people COULD say about a candidate. It would probably just limit what they WOULD say about a candidate. And it's perfectly fair for the opposing side to be able to defend themselves. The media people could say all they want, and then the opposing side could defend with whatever. Doesn't affect what people can and can't say any more than the laws we already have in place.

Limit what they 'would' say? Why? If it limits what they would say, that is a limitation on free speech. The freedom of speech clause, I believe, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly is for all speech, and mainly for political speech. You cannot censor political speech. It struck down part of the McCain (McCain/Finegold act?) bill passed in this last decade that restricted any 'attack' ads against political candidates that ran within a certain time period before an election. It was stated that that part restricted free speech, so it was removed.

Quote

And a bunch of people would have trouble coping. But hopefully that would just result in the people who couldn't cope losing their jobs and being replaced with better, more informative, news persons.

Then try and make the news organizations more accountable and hold to better standards from the inside. What about the talk shows then? On TV, the radio and cable/satellite? Would commentary and talk shows on them have to conform or would only news shows?

A stricter governmental control on that would be abused. I cannot see how it wouldn't be abused sooner rather than later. 'Say what we want you to say or we will fine you or remove your licence to broadcast.'

By forcing them to put on the other side, you limit what they can and do say and making them say things they might not want. Aside from news shows, aren't most of the shows (not including the obvious entertainment shows) more or less commentary or talkshows? What classifies as a news show?

It won't prevent them from saying things like 'He's a commie/corp shill/liberal/conservative/neo-luddite'.

I do think it might cut back on 'Because I disagree with his outlook/thoughts/existence he needs his head cut off' on the air.

Freedom of Speech isn't a shield behind which you can trash talk to garner ratings and then when something happens say 'I'm a journalist' or such.

You can say it.. if you're willing to accept the consequences of your words. Be it getting sued, curb stomped or being called a stupid git.

Freedom of speech is all well and good, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

Too often today Freedom of Speech is used to get out of those consequences, whereas Justice Holmes was all for saying what you wanted IF you could take the consequences.

I'm all for consequences. If a commentator, show or group pissed people off, go for it. They can lose support and money as companies and groups pull funding. Show it that way, but do not necessarily restrict what they can say. An example is the companies that pulled their funding from Wikileaks when those stories broke out. Wikileaks did something they didn't approve of. And people who supported what Wikileaks did attacked those companies for doing that. Consequences.

Political ads are often inflammatory and paint the other person in fairly negative terms. They always have been. Through innuendo and subtle (sometimes not so subtle) wording/sounds/pictures they get their point across.

They shouldn't call for the killing of someone, ads I mean, but can an individual call for that, give his/her opinion? It depends. If they say we'd be better off if this person was dead, I might not like it, but they can say it. Now if they were calling for the murder of someone, that is different, I will agree. Calling for the murder of someone is going too far.

I didn't say hurtful things. That was not a term that I used. I said "If you damage someone's career or lifestyle by lying about them," which is much more specific than "hurtful things." In the case of "hurtful things," anyone who gets butthurt about any stupid little thing would be in the right. And that's silly.

And limiting what a person "would" say is completely different than limiting what a person "could" say, which still seems to be the direction you're approaching it from. By enforcing more severe consequences for libel or slander, as well as enabling people to defend their positions (or requiring that news stations allow people to defend themselves/their positions), then people would have to pay higher consequences for their actions. You've just said that you're all for that. Higher consequences means that people would be less willing to break the rules.

Thus changing what they "would" say, but not changing what they "could" say. Besides, people are much less likely to go all redfaced and slanderous when they're actually faced with the person they're talking about. Which would also change what they "would" say. Not through punishment, but through social interaction. Nothin' wrong with that.

It's like when my mother said she wanted me to talk to a priest because she was 'worried about me playing D&D'. I told her 'Fine, but you have to talk to one of my friends for an equal amount of time.' I was perfectly willing to talk to the priest, and would have allowed him to say whatever he wanted to say. My mother opted not to agree to that.

Interestingly enough, when my family was 'forced' to interact with my gaming friends at my wedding (I met Mr. Oniya while he was GMing, one of our other GMs was the best man, another one was the maid of honor, another member of the crew played the bagpipes...) the reaction was that they were 'intelligent, articulate and - um - er - fun.' Social interaction. Go figure.

So much for the Freedom of Speech clause then. Many talk shows do political commentary, the Fairness Doctrine would seriously cut in to what they could say about a candidate since they could and likely would, be forced to let another side be shown/talked about on their shows. If they do not want to show the other side, they should have to be made to.

Freedom of speech protects ALL speech. Even that we do not like, including lies.

The specific terminology of the Constitution is the Freedom of the Press, and its intent is to foster the uninhibited distribution of facts. Lies are not covered by this, slander and libel are not covered by this, threats are not covered by this, incitements to violence are not covered by this. These are all classifications of speech that the Supreme Court has, in one way or another, ruled as not being protected speech.

And people should have the right to respond when they are accused of something. Up until the moment they are convicted.

Quote

That includes damned near every single political campaign being run nowdays.

And people should have the right to respond when they are accused of something. Up until the moment they are convicted.

People are even given the right to respond (should they choose) after conviction. In the federal system, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4) provides that the court must "address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence."